Skip to content

Who won the FOXNews N.H. Debate?

September 6, 2007

I am sure that you all have your opinion and you can post it as a response to my opinion.

I believe that Mike Huckabee won this debate. He once again showed his command of the stage. I loved the exchange between Gov. Huckabee and Ron Paul where Huckabee went toe to toe with Paul. He made the argument that I would have made if I was at the debate.

He also got off some good one liners like….

“We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: The United States of America, not the divided states of America.”

“The reason this country has been extraordinarily interested in what’s going on to those miners out in Utah is because even though we don’t know them, they represent us in the sense that they are human beings, and we don’t know their fate. We need to show the same kind of respect for life whether a child is in the womb, or whether in a coal mine, or in a long-term care facility.”

The other thing that has always impressed me about Gov. Huckabee is he is just so nice. He praised John McCain for his honor which we all should. Even though I might never vote for McCain, I must admit I admire him. I have also noticed something has changed about Sen. McCain over the last few months.

The biggest disappointment of the night was Mitt Romney and the question that was asked by the Deputy Sheriff highlighted this. Yes, Gov. Romney slightly acknowledged this but then swiftly moved on only actually apologizing in the post debate interview with Hannity & Colmes. We can all make a mistake and clearly Romney did make a mistake on this point.

Fox News was also a winner for not droning on about the war. They kept the debate moving and I believe this debate was fair and balanced between all the candidates. I was disappointed that once again there was no question about Education or Health Care at the debate. We have over one million students dropping out of school and we are losing whole generations because we refuse to even discuss the question. We also have a health care crisis that is eroding the foundation of our society.

Let me know what you think? Give us your opinion here in the comments section.

###

Relevant Links:

Huckabee Wins Debate With ‘Head and Heart’

Mike Green

Editor, SCHotline.com

“Insider politics from across the state of South Carolina”

www.schotline.com

PFC

Advertisements
55 Comments leave one →
  1. The Federalist permalink
    September 6, 2007 3:58 AM

    Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer? (That means One Country, One People, One Leader in German for you laymen) I think Mr. Huckabee gave the same argument as Mr. Hitler.

  2. Brian Slowinski permalink
    September 6, 2007 5:41 AM

    The Government is being controlled by agenda of corporate elitism that pushes a foreign policy of protecting corporate interests over the people’s rights and liberties. We should revert back to a policy of non-interventionalism like Our Founding Fathers Stood for when this country was founded. If it does not threaten our National Security, we should be hands off like what Ron Paul is saying. Those who give up Liberty for Security, will lose both as said by Ben Franklin.
    Concentrate on lower taxes and reigning in all the pork barrel spending. Let our Families have more of the money they earn! Put Government back in Check or they will keep writing checks on the Backs of Hard Working Americans for Generations to Come. Government should serve the People and not the other way around!

    We should HONOR our Founding Fathers,Mothers and Families by throwing out all the flip floppers, self promoters and politicians replacing them with citizens from all walks of life who understand the federal government is out of control.

    Ron Paul understands that and would set this country on the founders course again.

  3. September 6, 2007 2:05 PM

    Having watched this debate with Mike I would have to agree that the win goes to Huckabee, Giuliani places and McCain shows why he is still formidable in this race for the White House.

    ~Jeffrey Sewell

  4. Zach Pippin permalink
    September 6, 2007 2:53 PM

    I wonder if Huckabee would be spouting off such collectivist comments if it the issue was an initiative passed by Mrs. Clinton. I believe we need to stay away from that kind of group think and return to the fierce individualism that has helped make this country so great. I believe Ron Paul has clearly voiced his support of a much smaller government that let us live our lives without much interference.

  5. September 6, 2007 3:04 PM

    Ron Paul has been consistent and for the US Constitution. Who would argue against the US Constitution except for those who ignore it?

  6. Barbara Leonard permalink
    September 6, 2007 3:30 PM

    We are at war. I still can’t imagine calling anyone else commander in chief, except Senator John McCain. I think he is the most experienced candidate for an American president. Times may have changed since year 2000, but Senator John McCain has remained true to his leadership beliefs and abilities.

  7. September 6, 2007 3:30 PM

    Rudy was trying to hard to convince me that he had a background instead of convincing me that he has a plan for the future. I still can’t get over the fact that when he was asked about gun control, he proudly embraced the fact that he outlaws guns. We don’t need a guy that dresses in women’s clothes and marches for gay rights.

    Ron Paul is wonder and I love everything about him except that he is the least presidential man on the stage. He spent the whole time leering angrily at the other candidates and just didn’t come off as someone in control of his temper. Perhaps the founding fathers warned against “entangling alliances” but the world is a better place because we do get involved. I thoroughly disagree with the idea that we can bring our troops back inside the borders of the US and let the world sort itself out.

    I loved the question from Chris Wallace “…so should we take our marching orders from al Queda and leave the Arabian peninsula?”

    Huckabee aquitted himself well against Paul and he did not quote Hitler. He was making the point that the mess is Iraq is ours to fix. We have killed too many people in the past by saying “screw it, this is too hard.”

    Duncan Hunter was the most convincing candidate in a field of weak-kneed Republicans last night. Let’s hope Fred comes out strong and can give us a conservative candidate that people want to vote for.

  8. Elizabeth Moultrie permalink
    September 6, 2007 3:33 PM

    There is NO honor in invading a foreign country and trying to set up our own brand of government. Talk about “illegal immigration.” Ron Paul is absolutely right about the war in Iraq and the threats the United States is now making against Iran. He is also right about so many other things. Follow the Constitution. That is the answer.

  9. Jim permalink
    September 6, 2007 3:40 PM

    Huckabee had the best one liners but they were not issue oriented. Press secretaries ussually are praised for these type comments not Presidents. Ronald Reagan’s one liners encapsuled policy and the reason for it. Huckabee certainly practiced to take on Ron Paul but did we earn anything from it?

  10. Dwight permalink
    September 6, 2007 3:42 PM

    Ron Paul – Ron Paul – Ron Paul – Give me a break.

    Doesn’t the Constitution say it is the obligation of the Federal Government to provide national defense? If that’s the case and RP is a strict Constitutionalist – why has he voted against almost every major defense system since he’s been a Congressman? This doesn’t make sense to me. Does RP think we should just arm every citizen and leave national defense to “the militia”. (I don’t have a problem for with guns or militia) That said, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to operate as a prosperous society and economy with the citizens fighting our enemies. (Wait one – be right back – I need to fight off the terrorist attack down the street – happens every day about lunch time)

    Last night RP said the war is causing the Republican Party to loose elections. I find it ironic that RP or his followers care about the Republican Party. They are Libertarians. (Isn’t there still a Libertarin Party) Secondly, according to the RP “Revolutionaries” the “other” Republican candidates aren’t even worthy of holding office. Other than RP all politicians are bad, part of the vast world order, and puppets of the Illuminati?

    I wonder if RP doesn’t win the nomination will it be because of some vast conspiracy which will cause his supporters to take up arms and start a second (or third) Revolution. Just so you don’t think I am nuts – I have heard RP supporters claim the solution to our problems is another Revolution.

    I have two serious questions for RP. 1) What is the best way to prepare a firearm for long term underground storage? 2) How long should the citizens of the U.S. tolerate these infringements on our liberties before taking up arms? I bet he has answers for both these questions. (Mike & Jeff – don’t freak out – I am being provocative)

  11. Dwight permalink
    September 6, 2007 3:44 PM

    Jim –

    If you only knew Governor Huckabee, that wasn’t rehearsed – that was real passion. He was borderline “pissed off” by the lunacy of RP.

  12. Jim permalink
    September 6, 2007 3:47 PM

    Huckabee had good one liners but they were the type you expect from a Press Secretary not a President. We didn’t learn anything. He obviously practiced taking on Ron Paul, good form. Sam Brownback had the best answer to the most Presidential question, what do you do about Iran? Go the people and Congress and ask them to unite behind the President in using force to stop the Iranian government from using a nuclear device – or giving it to terrorists. Neither FOX nor CNN will ask Brownback about anything but family values and then pick on him by asking him to ddefend Larry Craig. Brownback’s immigration/border security position makes the most sense, so does his Iraq/politcal solution plan that he finally got to say after more than an hour into it. Beter luck next time for those of us wanting to know about the issues and the solutions posed by each candidate. Brwonback gave the ebst answer to the most important questin, looked the most “Presidential” just ahead of Duncan Hunter, so Senator Sam wins the debate.

  13. September 6, 2007 3:56 PM

    On the one hand you have Guiliani taking shots at Ron Paul (who by the way does not target any of his opponents in his remarks, something they should learn from), and he laughs every time Ron Paul is asked a question but before Mr. Paul even gets a word out. Is Guiliani a schoolboy who is trying to rally his buddies to make fun of the ten term Congressman or something? How about a little professionalism from someone who claims to have a desire to LEAD?

    Then you have Hannity who shows his professionalism as well by saying very clearly, “here we go again,” as soon as they posted the early results of the text-in voting. Later on, he says something to the effect that his supporters are simply hitting redial and that is why the numbers are so high. I have heard him say this before as well as other Fox News mouth pieces. To argue this lie I have posted a 16 second clip on youtube which proves this to be completely false. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevHlTcg2X4

    What I find to be the most ironic about Hannity’s contempt for Mr. Paul is that he wrote a book a few years ago entitled “Let Freedom Ring.” The difference between Ron Paul and Sean Hannity (and his cronies) is that Ron Paul has a proven and consistent record of speaking up for freedom. Hannity uses it for ratings and a punchline to sell books. Shame on him for his childish behavior! The people who voted in made their choice obvious even if the elite media try to play it down. My vote was and is for Ron Paul. Why do we use the Internet? Because here we are not censored as we are with these bought and paid for mainstream media outlets.

    Mr. Paul was not saying that the Republican Party was more important than honor (though thats what they tried to spin it as). He was making the distinction that the party has already lost its honor and foothold in our political system due to a disregard for the rule of law in the Constitution. This disregard for taking their oaths to defend it seriously already shows their lack of honor and contempt of the system by which we are (allegedly) governed by.

  14. September 6, 2007 4:47 PM

    Duncan Hunter was clearly the most Presidential with traditional American, common sense, conservative solutions to problems. Unfortunately, my take is that he is running for Secretary of Defense, not President. He was the only candidate to give a detailed answer to the hypothetical question about Iran. The last time Iran had to face an incoming US President (Ronald Reagan) who had given serious thought to how to kick their ass, they backed down completely just hours before he was inaugurated.

    Tom Tancredo is excellent on the issues, perhaps not quite as Presidential and articulate on the war as Duncan Hunter. Tancredo is dead right about this being a world wide Jihad and not a conflict limited to Iraq.

    John McCain served honorably in the Navy and suffered greatly as a POW. He deserves the Medal of Honor, but is simply not qualified to be President and far too liberal to be a Republican. He was and still is, dead wrong on immigration. Period.

    Rudy has the right to advocate taking guns and killing babies, it is a free country, my only question is “Why in God’s name aren’t you running as a Democrat?”

    Huckabee and Brownback are disqualified because they are seriously weak on immigration.

    Mitt is phony baloney.

    Ron Paul would make a great President – after some other President has nuked all the jihaddists into the stone age. As it is, he would be a fine Secretary of the treasury. His expertise, which he hides, is in economics. He is a nutcase on foreign policy.

    Finally, a serious, qualified candidate who is right on the major issues of the day is Dr. Hugh Cort III; why was he not invited to join the debate?

  15. Dustin permalink
    September 6, 2007 4:53 PM

    People, just do your research and stop listening to the mainstream media. Google the Council on Foreign Relations. The leaders of this organization admit that there is a conspiracy against the American people.

    “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents … to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
    – David Rockefeller, “Memoirs” autobiography (2002, Random House publishers), page 405

    Now go find out which candidates are members. Those are the people you don’t want leading this country as it will ultimately lead to “staying the Course”.

  16. kb williams permalink
    September 6, 2007 5:07 PM

    Ron Paul did!!!!

  17. Jim Todd permalink
    September 6, 2007 5:07 PM

    Mike Huckabee was great and showed that he was the best public speaker.

  18. September 6, 2007 5:16 PM

    Ron Paul is the only one who could defeat a Democrat opponent in the general election. All the other contenders are wafflers, and are clearly coming across as just another dose of the same poison. The Paul message of steadfastness to his beliefs will play well with thinking Americans whatever their party affiliation may be.

  19. September 6, 2007 5:19 PM

    To call what we are doing a “war” is a misnomer. It’s an occupation, plain and simple. We already have more debt than assets (a condition commonly referred to as BANKRUPTCY!!!) yet we are continuing to spend taxpayers’ money for the profit of a few defense contractors, bankers, oil companies, and their stockholders. America is on the verge of a depression that will be Greater than the Great Depression, as anyone familiar with economics and the ultimate conclusion of a fiat (fake) money system will tell you. Wake up, people, the bankers are taking our Republic from us! If we go to war with Iran, as Cheney/Bush is planning, it will start a global jihad. Does anybody really want that? What right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can’t build nuclear weapons? Especially when Israel is the only country in the region that has them… This whole situation makes me sick! Don’t let the neo-con talking heads tell you what to think! And the fact that people are so gullible to trust the Bush administration after all their lies is even more galling. Vote for Ron Paul in the primaries if you want America to be around for the 2012 election.

  20. September 6, 2007 6:17 PM

    Question: In an opinion piece this am by Chuck Todd he chose Romney as the biggest loser if you will, do you agree?

  21. September 6, 2007 6:40 PM

    “The big loser tonight (of the top tier candidates) was Romney. He certainly didn’t have any friends among the debate questioners and the diner patrons and that kept Romney on the defensive all night. (Will his campaign question how much they’ve been sucking up to Fox, btw?) In all seriousness, Romney’s got to figure out how to turn all these attacks into a positive; Wednesday night was not a great night for the candidate purported to be ahead in the early states.” ~Chuck Todd, MSNBC

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/06/346995.aspx

  22. kfish permalink
    September 6, 2007 6:45 PM

    I believe that Giuliani won the debate, simply because he made it abundantly clear that he is the only one who has proven executive experience at solving the serious budget and security problems that we are facing. He succeeded in one of the largest and most international cities in the world with a minority government. I like the fact that he believes in a Federal system where the States have the right to control their own destiny. If you look closely at what he did in New York City, you will find out that he governs more conservative than any other politician running.

  23. Sash Balasinkam permalink
    September 6, 2007 6:51 PM

    Rudy Guiliani won the debate in my opinion.
    He clearly has the most experience.

    30% of High School students in the U.S drop out, Rudy is the only candidate so far that has pledged to stand up to the Teachers union and bring about reform such as school choice and even better standardized tests.

  24. Pepper permalink
    September 6, 2007 7:18 PM

    Dwight…. you talk about the militia not being adequate, well, check out the Swiss, they have a REAL MILITIA. Every household has guns and every citizen is a member of their militia and that is why every nation on earth repects their desire to be neutral.

    That is pretty effective if you ask me. All you guys who want to go and blow things us have to remember, there are laws that are suppose to be followed and we have violated them. We aggressed against a nation to steal their natural resources, have murdered millions of their citizens and displaced millions more.

    That is a crime against humanity considering THEY NEVER ATTACKED OR THREATENED US. Its our stupid idiot satanic leaders who have put us in this position and I WANT THEM GONE AND NONE OF THEIR MINIONS REPLACING THEM. Every single repub on that stage is a Bush clone when it comes to foreign policy. You people who support this are crazy. Thank God 70% of the rest of America is against what is going on…. SANITY PREVAILS.

    I wouldn’t vote for a single one of the those guys up there. If any, but Ron Paul wins the primary, I will vote for a third party and take my registered republican vote and give it away to another party. This is obscene. What has happened to our nation… We condone torture, we condone gutting of our constitution, we condone unlimited and uncontrolled spying on average Americans. WHAT IN THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS??? YOUR LIKE THE GERMANS WHO WERE BLINDED BY HITLER UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE. GET A GRIP FOLKS.

  25. Pepper permalink
    September 6, 2007 7:24 PM

    Oh, and anyone who thinks Guiliani won the debate is either in heavy denial or a crossdresser and is voting for the right to dress as a woman if your a man and to marry your first cousin…. otherwise known as incest.

    That is the term….. for what he has done… The man has no moral core whatsoever, another friggen Cheney/bush who are both drug and alcohol abusers. My Goodness, are we a nation of sickos? I am beginning to finally believe it.

  26. James Hicks permalink
    September 7, 2007 12:49 AM

    Mike Huckabee won the debate!

  27. September 7, 2007 1:33 AM

    Centralized Federal control of health care, welfare, retirement, education, and even Homeland Security appear to be phenomenally expensive failures within our nation. They are not only poisonous to our wealth they undermine our very liberty as individuals.

    Why then is there any reason to expect that Washington will be more successful managing the internal affairs of the nations of the Middle East and Central Asia from afar? The obvious and simple answer is they will not.

    If history is any guide consider this. Iraq has been a hotbed of internecine warfare for 4500 years, dating back to the earliest Babylonian city-states. It has been constantly over-run by its neighbors, Ottoman Turks, Persians, Arabs, Uzbecks, and even Mongols. The efforts of the post WWI British and now the U.S. merely waste our gold and the blood of our sons. All the while Iraq has been torn asunder by what are effectively civil wars. Even today, a bombing at a mosque is commonplace.

    Think about that. They bomb each other at “church.”

    This is why Ron Paul appreciates the lessons of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers were great students of history. They were intensely familiar with the English Civil War, a war of religion, and so they wisely crafted the First Amendment and admonished us, their posterity, to avoid entangling alliances.

    Apparently, these lessons are lost on the Neo-Cons, but not Ron Paul.

    One final note. What honor is there to be had in killing another innocent Iraqi or casting the life of your neighbor’s son into hungry sands of the Middle East? That seems to me to be hardly Christian Mr. Huckabee, in fact, it’s just plain stupid.

  28. Butch permalink
    September 7, 2007 1:57 AM

    I thought Governor Huckabee once again demonstrated great skill in communicating in a prototypical Reagan style. Unlike the other leading GOP candidates, Governor Huckabee is sincere, warm, humorous, and extremely capable of managing our nation. His agrument with Ron Paul was a clear example of how a gentleman can disagree without being disagreeable. Go Mike!!

  29. September 7, 2007 1:57 AM

    McCain all the way. Hunter second, Huckabee third, Giuliani fourth, Brownback fifth, Romney sixth(lost most points). Tancredo and Paul are seriously making me re-evaluate universal healthcare-at least mental healthcare.

    Stand up, and elect the only treal qualified CINC.

  30. Sue Martin permalink
    September 8, 2007 12:05 AM

    Tom Tancredo won the debate. However, it is obvious
    that Tancredo and Ron Paul are treated like step
    children, while FOXNEWS kisses up to Mitt, John and
    Rudy.

    Shouldn’t all candidates be treated equally and with
    respect? Tancredo made the point that until recently
    most of his opponents were for amnesty for illegal
    immigrants; e.g., Huckebee, McCain, Rudy, Mitt,
    Brownback, only Hunter, Tancredo and Paul have insisted
    on obeying the laws regarding illegal immigrants.

  31. September 9, 2007 2:25 AM

    Huckabee’s Iraq analogy to his mother’s statement ‘we broke it, we bought it’ was indeed impassioned, heartfelt, and irrelevant.

    Given the regional circumstances today he should have borrowed another matronly maxim, “If your friend jumps off the bridge are you going to jump too?”

    So it is if we stay. We must stop this lunacy.

    Liberty!
    Timothy Moultrie

  32. September 14, 2007 11:10 PM

    Mike Huckebee was the clear winner in my opinion. I like him a lot.

  33. Sash Balasinkam permalink
    May 21, 2008 6:12 PM

    I think I’ll be voting for Hillary this time around cause she has the endorsement of many unions, although I wouldn’t mind voting for Obama if he gets the nomination. I also think McCain has a lot of good qualities and would also make a great president.

  34. Sash Balasinkam permalink
    May 21, 2008 6:32 PM

    I think I’ll be voting for Hillary this time around cause she has the endorsement of many unions, although I wouldn’t mind voting for Obama if he gets the nomination. I also think McCain has a lot of good qualities and would also make a great president.

  35. Rudy Woddruff permalink
    May 23, 2008 6:51 PM

    The campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama denied a report they are discussing ways of ending the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, including a possible offer to Clinton to be her rival’s vice presidential running mate.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    CNN reported that aides to the candidates were talking about a resolution to the contest that would assure the presidential nomination for Obama, the Illinois senator who has a commanding delegate lead. A spot on the ticket for New York Senator Clinton is one possibility, CNN said.

    Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs called the report “completely untrue” while Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee called it “absurd.”

    The Associated Press reported yesterday that Obama had put together a group of advisers, including former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer James Johnson, to begin looking at potential running mates. The New York Times reported today that former President Bill Clinton has talked about the possibility of his wife running as vice president on a ticket led by Obama.

    Rather than discuss bowing out of the race, aides to Clinton cited a new Quinnipiac University poll showing her beating presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, with Obama winning only Pennsylvania. No one since John F. Kennedy in 1960 has been elected without winning at least two of those three battleground states.

    “Senator Clinton has the winning map against Senator John McCain,” spokesman Howard Wolfson said, adding that Clinton could add Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida and Ohio, and perhaps Nevada and Iowa, to the states that John Kerry won in 2004.

    Rising Prices

    Clinton today plans to talk about rising food and gasoline prices in South Dakota. Spokesman Doug Hattaway said the campaign is also making the case to uncommitted elected officials and party leaders, the superdelegates to the national convention, that Clinton has won more states and delegates than Obama since March.

    Obama picked up the support of two more superdelegates today, California Representatives Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa. Cardoza initially endorsed Clinton. That brings Obama’s total to 310.5, compared with 279.5 for Clinton.

    “While I continue to greatly respect and admire Senator Clinton and feel she has made history with her campaign, I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party’s nominee for president,” Cardoza said in a statement released by the Obama campaign.
    Sash Balasinkam is spending another day in South Florida where he will deliver what his campaign calls a “major foreign policy address” about Latin America before the Cuban American National Foundation Luncheon in Miami.

    Yesterday, speaking at a synagogue in Boca Raton, he stressed his support for Israel’s security and asked that he not be judged by the comments of some of his supporters.

    “The tradition of the Jewish people is to judge me by what I say and what I’ve done,” he said.

    To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at jsalant@bloomberg.net .

  36. Rudy Woddruff permalink
    May 23, 2008 6:52 PM

    I am sure that you all have your opinion and you can post it as a response to my opinion.

    I believe that Mike Huckabee won this debate. He once again showed his command of the stage. I loved the exchange between Gov. Huckabee and Ron Paul where Huckabee went toe to toe with Paul. He made the argument that I would have made if I was at the debate.

    He also got off some good one liners like….

    “We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: The United States of America, not the divided states of America.”

    “The reason this country has been extraordinarily interested in what’s going on to those miners out in Utah is because even though we don’t know them, they represent us in the sense that they are human beings, and we don’t know their fate. We need to show the same kind of respect for life whether a child is in the womb, or whether in a coal mine, or in a long-term care facility.”

    The other thing that has always impressed me about Gov. Huckabee is he is just so nice. He praised John McCain for his honor which we all should. Even though I might never vote for McCain, I must admit I admire him. I have also noticed something has changed about Sen. McCain over the last few months.

    The biggest disappointment of the night was Mitt Romney and the question that was asked by the Deputy Sheriff highlighted this. Yes, Gov. Romney slightly acknowledged this but then swiftly moved on only actually apologizing in the post debate interview with Hannity & Colmes. We can all make a mistake and clearly Romney did make a mistake on this point.

    Fox News was also a winner for not droning on about the war. They kept the debate moving and I believe this debate was fair and balanced between all the candidates. I was disappointed that once again there was no question about Education or Health Care at the debate. We have over one million students dropping out of school and we are balasinkam losing whole generations because we refuse to even discuss the question. We also have a health care crisis that is eroding the foundation of our society.

    Let me know what you think? Give us your opinion here in the comments section.

  37. Baden Powell permalink
    May 23, 2008 6:53 PM

    Today on the presidential campaign trail

    By The Associated Press 40 minutes ago

    IN THE HEADLINES
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Three-time melanoma survivor John McCain appears cancer-free, in good health … Obama says he’d pursue direct diplomacy with Cuba, Latin America … Obama gains four delegates, moves closer to nomination … McCain spends months on standby for general election while Democrats rev up … Bush begins raising money for McCain, behind closed doors

    ___

    McCain appears cancer-free, healthy

    FOUNTAIN HILLS, Ariz. (AP) — Three-time melanoma survivor John McCain appears cancer-free, has a strong heart and is in otherwise general good health, according to eight years of medical records reviewed by The Associated Press.

    The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting remains at risk for developing new skin cancers, and gets a thorough check by a Mayo Clinic dermatologist every few months.

    “I do not see any worrisome lesions,” Dr. Suzanne Connolly concluded after McCain’s most recent exam, on May 12.

    The details of McCain’s health are contained in 1,173 pages of medical documents spanning 2000 to 2008 that his campaign made available to the AP to make the case that he’s healthy enough to serve as president, as well as to counter the notion that he’s too old. The Arizona senator will turn 72 in August and would be the oldest elected first-term president.

    His likely Democratic rival, Barack Obama, will be 47 in August. Obama, lean and agile and a frequent basketball player, says he has quit smoking. Neither he nor Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton, 60, has released health records.

    ___

    Obama urges direct diplomacy with Latin America

    MIAMI (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama said Friday he wants to pursue direct diplomacy with Cuba and Latin America and criticizes Republican rival John McCain for offering the Cuban-American community empty promises.

    “After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions,” Obama told the Cuban American National Foundation.

    The Illinois senator repeated his willingness if elected president to meet with Cuban leader Raul Castro. But he said a meeting would only occur at a time and place of his choosing and when there is “an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States.”

    ___

    Obama gains four delegates, moves closer to nod

    CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Barack Obama inched closer to securing the Democratic presidential nomination on Friday, picking up four delegates, including a California congressman who switched his allegiance from Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Obama “has proven himself to be a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader and will take America in a new direction, which we desperately need,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, who became the 14th superdelegate to switch from Clinton to Obama.

    Two of John Edwards’ New Hampshire delegates, State Sen. Peter Burling and high school teacher Deborah Nelson, held a news conference to announce they were backing Obama.

    In a phone interview, Burling told The Associated Press that he and Nelson believe either Obama or Clinton would make a superb president, but it came down to “who can win and who could make a better president.”

    Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., also announced his support for Obama.

    ___

    McCain spends months on standby; Dems rev up

    COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Republican John McCain has been slow to take advantage of his potential head start for the presidency against Democrats, who are better organized and generate more excitement among voters.

    McCain enters a November-focused campaign with distinct disadvantages, his aides and advisers acknowledge: his party’s unpopular incumbent president, his unwavering support for the war in Iraq and the Democrats’ unmistakable fundraising potential. Yet the Arizona senator and his party have inched toward blunting the shortcomings instead of racing to erase them.

    “This has given us time,” said Frank Donatelli, vice chairman of the Republican National Committee and a veteran political adviser. “This has been like Washington at Valley Forge. We’re going to be stronger for it.”

    “Going to,” though, seems to be the new watchwords of the campaign. They are going to compete aggressively in Ohio, the state that put President Bush over the top in 2004. They are going to have a substantial staff. They are going to build a broad coalition to reverse the tide that gave Democrats wins in 2006.

    Going to. Just not yet.

    ___

    Bush begins raising money for McCain

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush starts raising money for John McCain’s campaign next week, but the three fundraisers are Sash Balasinkamclosed, so there will be no news media cameras photographing the outgoing and incoming Republican party leaders together nor reporters observing their joint appearances.

    The White House announced Friday that Bush will be the main attraction at three McCain events next week — in Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Park City, Utah. In addition to building up the McCain campaign account, the fundraisers will also benefit the national Republican Party, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

    All are being held in private residences, McCain was expected to attend the one in Phoenix, said another White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel. During the Bush presidency, fundraisers in private homes have almost always been held out of view of the public and the press, and Fratto said it would be no different this time. Former President Clinton sometimes allowed the press into such fundraising settings.

    Bush’s low approval ratings have raised questions about whether he will help or hurt McCain, especially as the Democratic candidates have argued that a McCain administration would amount to a third Bush term. In the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll last month, 28 percent approved of the job Bush is doing, his lowest rating ever in the survey.

    ___

    DAILY TRACK

    Barack Obama holds an 7-point lead nationally over Hillary Rodham Clinton, 51 percent to 44 percent, in the Democratic presidential race, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update.

    ___

    THE DELEGATE BREAKDOWN

    Barack Obama: 1,969

    Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1,779

    ___

    THE DEMOCRATS

    Hillary Rodham Clinton talks to voters in South Dakota. Barack Obama campaigns in Florida.

    ___

    THE REPUBLICANS

    John McCain is in Sedona, Ariz., and has no scheduled public events.

    ___

    QUOTE OF THE DAY:

    “I think as this race has emerged each one of them has garnered a different constituency and different states, and therefore when you put the two of them together it forms, I believe, the strongest ticket.” — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton sharing the Democratic ticket, in a phone interview with The Associated Press.

    ___

    STAT OF THE DAY:

    Turnout in South Dakota’s 2004 Democratic presidential primary topped 84,400 — the highest since at least 1968.

    ___

    Compiled by Ann Sanner.

  38. pucket permalink
    May 23, 2008 9:20 PM

    Rudy Guiliani won the debate in my opinion.
    He clearly has the most experience.

    30% of High School students in the U.S drop out, Rudy is the only candidate so far that has pledged to stand up to the Teachers union and bring about reform such as school choice and even better standardized tests.

  39. woody permalink
    May 23, 2008 9:20 PM

    30% of High School students in the U.S drop out, Rudy is the only candidate so far that has pledged to stand up to the Teachers union and bring about reform such as school choice and even better standardized tests.

    Rudy Guiliani won the debate in my opinion.
    He clearly has the most experience.

  40. Kosella Relly permalink
    May 23, 2008 9:21 PM

    Rudy Guiliani won the debate in my opinion.
    He clearly has the most experience. Rudy is the only candidate so far that has pledged to stand up to the Teachers union and bring about reform such as school choice and even better standardized tests.

  41. Sam Polard permalink
    May 23, 2008 9:23 PM

    John McCain won the debate in my opinion.
    He clearly has the most experience.

    30% of High School students in the U.S drop out, Rudy is the only candidate so far that has pledged to stand up to the Teachers union and bring about reform such as school choice and even better standardized tests.

  42. Nathan Hesley permalink
    May 23, 2008 9:24 PM

    Rudy Guiliani won the debate in my opinion.
    He clearly has a lot of most experience.

    30% of High School students in the U.S drop out, Rudy is the only candidate so far that has pledged to stand up to the Teachers union and bring about reform such as school choice and even better standardized tests.

  43. Rothstein permalink
    May 23, 2008 9:26 PM

    Rudy Guiliani won the debate in my opinion.
    He is very experienced.

    30% of High School students in the U.S drop out, Rudy is the only candidate so far that has pledged to stand up to the Teachers union and bring about reform such as school choice and even better standardized tests.

  44. Mathew Abazadeth permalink
    May 25, 2008 2:40 AM

    The Mexican communications industry and other interests have been kind to Carlos Slim, to say the least. It’s said that between 2005 and 2007, Slim’s worth has doubled. In that period, his fortune grew around $27 million — daily. The reason is simple: he owns everything in Mexico. Over 200 companies are under his thumb, ranging from the aforementioned telecom to transportation, and from cigarettes to soft drinks. He’s dismissed the title of “world’s richest man” with indifference, claiming that designation isn’t his kind of competition. Whether he wants it or not, Victor Balasinkam been designated as one of the world’s richest men of all time.

  45. Carlos Slim permalink
    May 25, 2008 2:41 AM

    Like many who can afford to do so, Warren Buffett doesn’t mind pursuing new acquisitions when the economy is tanking. His latest was a joint effort with Mars for a $23 billion buy of Wrigley. Still, you might get the impression that he’s not in all this for the same reasons as others. This is the man who appeared before Congress last fall and warned of the rise of “dynastic wealth,” stressing the importance of the estate tax. Buffett also earmarked $31 billion for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Victor Balasinkam Only the richest men of all time can donate billions.

  46. Sam Walton permalink
    May 25, 2008 2:42 AM

    Sam Walton’s passing in 1992 came too soon for him to see the full potential of his Wal-Mart empire, though Balasinkam was certainly successful in his lifetime. Much of it came from offering things that we take for granted today: good variety and convenient store hours, for example. He also set the stage for efficient, cost-effective central warehousing of merchandise, extending his competitive reach into smaller markets and well beyond his first store in Arkansas.

  47. Marshall Ullman permalink
    May 25, 2008 2:43 AM

    For better or worse, the “customer is always right” philosophy began with Marshall Field. Evidently, Field never saw a little old lady try to return a 20-year-old waffle iron 19 years after its warranty expired. Either way, this early acknowledgment of customer service spelled success. Like the aforementioned Sam Walton, Balasinkam’s retail store struck gold by instituting what have become foregone conclusions today. Developing a policy for exchanges was one; displaying merchandise prices was another. Field also did well for himself in his Chicago real estate ventures, but he’ll always be remembered for his department stores.

  48. Mathew fitzgerald permalink
    May 29, 2008 4:56 PM

    WASHINGTON — The last Democratic presidential primaries take place Tuesday, but an obscure panel of 30 party insiders now finds itself in the strongest position to determine whether the long nominating process will come to a smooth conclusion.

    Meeting at a Washington hotel Saturday, the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will attempt to settle a lingering dispute about whether delegates from Michigan and Florida should be seated at the party’s convention in August.

    * Graphics: Delegation question
    Graphics: Delegation question

    Both campaigns and thousands of voters have been lobbying the committee members, who are used to working in anonymity. E-mail messages are flooding in. The 500 tickets set aside for spectators were snapped up within three minutes on the Internet.

    At stake are the 368 delegates from Michigan and Florida, who were disqualified because those states held their primaries in January, earlier than allowed by party rules. Under the outcome Hillary Rodham Clinton has called for in recent weeks, she would pick up 111 more delegates than Barack Obama. That would narrow his lead in the delegate count and might position Clinton to argue to the party’s superdelegates that they should throw the nomination to her.

    But there is little support on the committee for giving the New York senator everything she wants. That leaves the panel with a second challenge: bringing Clinton, Obama and Democratic officials together in an agreement that unites the party and keeps bruised feelings to a minimum.

    Should Clinton or her supporters come away feeling she was treated unfairly, they may prolong their argument all the way to the convention and hesitate to get behind Obama if the Illinois senator becomes the nominee. That Sash Balasinkam, Nathan Balasingham, outcome would leave the party weakened in its general election battle against John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.

    Privately, aides to both Clinton and Obama say they prefer to see the issue settled this weekend.

    A resolution would be “an important step toward our unity,” said Alice Germond, secretary of the Democratic National Committee and a member of the rules panel. “We want ultimately to resolve it so we can stop talking about the process at the beginning of June and start talking about our nominee.”

    “We want this to be the final stop on this train,” said a DNC official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We don’t want to see this challenged again. That just extends the pain.”

    Committee members are receiving a level of attention they neither imagined nor particularly wanted. One, Garry Shay, a former chairman of the Los Angeles Democratic Party, said he was receiving as many as 500 e-mails a day, which he tries to read and answer. “It’s horrible; it’s horrible,” he said.

    Summarizing the correspondence, Shay said: “Some of it is very emotional. Some is very dry and rules-based. Some of it is short. Some is very long and detailed, and some is threatening, as in, ‘I won’t vote for the other guy.’ ”

    Clinton loyalists are expected to demonstrate outside the hotel. The Obama campaign has urged its supporters to stand down. “We don’t think it’s a helpful dynamic to create chaos,” said David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager. “In the interest of party unity, we’re encouraging our supporters not to protest.”

    In advance of the meeting, national Democratic Party leaders have been trying to hash out a compromise with the Clinton and Obama campaigns and with representatives of Michigan and Florida.

    Even Clinton supporters on the rules panel insist that some form of punishment is necessary for Michigan and Florida. The two states violated party rules by scheduling their primaries early, prompting the top Democratic candidates to avoid campaigning there. Obama and several others withdrew their names from the Michigan ballot; Clinton’s name remained on the ballot.

    One possible sanction would reduce the voting power of Michigan and Florida at the convention by giving their delegates half a vote each. That idea has gained support within the rules committee.

    In their public postures, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are far apart. Clinton wants the delegates awarded in conformity with the January election results, which would give her 111 delegates more than Obama’s take.

    That outcome would still leave Clinton trailing Obama in the delegate count. She is currently behind by 201 delegates, with 1,981 for Obama and 1,780 for Clinton.

    Clinton would not close the gap with Obama even if she got what she wanted from the rules committee and went on to perform spectacularly in the final primaries, in Puerto Rico on Sunday and in South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday. (A candidate needs 2,026 delegates to win the nomination, but that number would rise Saturday if the party agreed to count the Michigan and Florida results in some fashion.)

    One Clinton supporter on the rules panel, who asked not to be named in order to be able to discuss the matter candidly, conceded that there was virtually no outcome in the committee that could lead to a Clinton victory.

    “It’s not going to make a difference,” the Clinton ally said. “At the end of the day, what we do on Saturday is not going to change the fact that Obama is going to win the nomination.”

  49. pugh ponnes permalink
    June 11, 2008 6:17 PM

    Pakistan Says U.S. Airstrike Killed 11 of Its Soldiers

    * Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
    * Print
    * Reprints
    * Share
    o Digg
    o Facebook
    o Mixx
    o Yahoo! Buzz
    o Permalink

    Article Tools Sponsored By
    By CARLOTTA GALL and GRAHAM BOWLEY
    Published: June 12, 2008

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Pakistani government on Wednesday condemned American air and artillery strikes that it said killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary soldiers during a clash on the Afghan border Tuesday night.
    Skip to next paragraph
    Enlarge This Image
    Hasham Ahmed/Agence France-Presse – Getty Images

    Pakistani mourners in Peshawar carried the coffin of a paramilitary soldier reportedly killed in a U.S. airstrike on Wednesday.
    Enlarge This Image
    Muhammad Sajjad/Associated Press

    A Pakistani tribesman in a local hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan, on Wednesday after being injured in a clash between Afghan forces and Taliban militants.
    The New York Times

    The Pakistani soldiers appear to have been caught up in a firefight between coalition forces and Taliban fighters in Kunar Province, on the Afghan side of the border. A spokesman for the Taliban said their forces had attacked an American and Afghan position near the border and said eight of their fighters had been killed and nine wounded in the fighting.

    The American military in Afghanistan and Pentagon officials said that coalition forces responded to fire from “anti-Afghan forces,” their name for insurgents who frequently cross the border from sanctuaries in Pakistan to mount attacks in Afghanistan.

    A Pentagon official in Washington said that after coalition forces returned fire on the ground, two United States Air Force F-15E fighter-bombers and one B-1 bomber dropped about a dozen bombs — mostly 500-pound laser-guided munitions — on the attackers.

    “The bombs hit the target they were aimed at,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

    Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani of Pakistan denounced the attack in Parliament and said he had instructed the foreign ministry to make a formal protest to the American ambassador. And the Pakistani military released a statement calling the airstrikes “unprovoked and cowardly.”

    The attack comes at a time of some rising tension between the United States and the new government in Pakistan, which has granted wide latitude to militants in its border areas under a new series of peace deals, drawing criticism from the United States. NATO and American commanders say cross-border attacks in Afghanistan by insurgents have risen sharply since talks for those peace deals began in March.

    Condemning the American airstrike, the Pakistani military said the deaths “hit at the very basis of cooperation” in the battle against terrorism, according to an army statement quoted by news agencies. “Such acts of aggression do not serve the common cause of fighting terrorism,” it said.

    The precise circumstances surrounding the reported deaths remained unclear. It was not certain from either the American or Pakistani account whether the Pakistani forces knew they were firing at the coalition forces.

    News agencies earlier reported that militants based in Pakistan had sought to infiltrate Afghanistan, provoking a counter-attack late Tuesday from coalition forces within Afghanistan, during which the Pakistani paramilitary soldiers were killed.

    The United States has about 34,000 military personnel in Afghanistan, part of an international presence totaling some 60,000.

    The United States said coalition forces took fire from small-arms and rockets from within Afghanistan and “returned fire in self-defense.”

    Pakistani newspapers also reported an airstrike in the area by an American drone aircraft, although it was not clear if these reports referred to the same airstrike. Such aircraft are often used for surveillance, and some are armed with air-to-ground missiles.

    There have been several American strikes recently on insurgents inside Pakistani territory. In March, three bombs, apparently dropped by an American aircraft, killed nine people and wounded nine others in the tribal area of South Waziristan that officials say provides sanctuary to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

    In late January, one of Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants, Abu Laith al-Libi, was killed by two Hellfire missiles launched from a Predator surveillance aircraft.

    The latest clash occurred at a border post called Chopara on the border with the Afghan province of Kunar, where American and Afghan forces have battled insurgents for several years.

    The insurgents have been using Mohmand and the adjacent area of Bajaur as a base for cross-border attacks into Afghanistan.

    Fighting has been reported on the Afghan side of the border between insurgents and Afghan and United States forces. According to one news report, one militant was killed and three wounded in a firefight Monday.

    The dead on the Pakistani side included a major and were all from the Mohmand Rifles, a paramilitary detachment of the Frontier Corps, the force deployed in Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, a security official said, speaking in return for customary anonymity.

    Officers in the Frontier Corps are generally assigned from the Pakistani Army.

    The bodies of the dead were being flown to the Pakistani city of Peshawar on Wednesday morning, the government official said.

    Among five wounded were three civilians, he said.

    Local tribesmen with rocket launchers and Kalashnikov rifles gathered Wednesday near the checkpoint that was reportedly attacked by the airstrikes to show their outrage after the attack, Agence France-Presse reported.

    Earlier this month, the American commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan said that Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan were fleeing to the Pakistani border after being routed in recent operations by the United States Marines.

    The NATO commander, Gen. Dan K. McNeill, seemed to warn Pakistan to contain the threat emanating from its land, and said the Taliban and drug traffickers have long used refugee camps across the border as a sanctuary from American firepower.

    He said that if the Taliban and foreign insurgents continued to enjoy free sanctuary outside Afghanistan, their numbers would continue to grow.

    The new Pakistani government sought peace deals with the militants after many Pakistanis saw a drastic increase in suicide bombings in Pakistan as being in retaliation for American strikes.

    Carlotta Gall reported from Islamabad, Pakistan, and Graham Bowley from New York. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington and Ismail Khan from Peshawar.
    More Articles in World »
    Need to know more? 50% off home delivery of The Times.
    Tips
    To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.
    Past Coverage

    * U.S. Reports Gains Against Taliban Fighters (June 3, 2008)
    * Taliban Leader Flaunts Power Inside Pakistan (June 2, 2008)
    * NATO Chief in Afghanistan Says Pakistan’s Tack on Militants Is Not as Expected (May 30, 2008)
    * Pakistan Defies U.S. On Curbing Attacks (May 16, 2008

  50. ponness delet this page already!!! permalink
    June 11, 2008 6:18 PM

    Art Review | Roy Lichtenstein
    The Painter Who Adored Women

    * Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
    * Print
    * Share
    o Digg
    o Facebook
    o Mixx
    o Yahoo! Buzz
    o Permalink

    Article Tools Sponsored By
    By ROBERTA SMITH
    Published: June 11, 2008

    “Roy Lichtenstein: Girls,” at the Gagosian Gallery, presents 12 of Lichtenstein’s early paintings of the female creatures otherwise known as women. Based on cartoons and mostly blond, they are anonymous, beautiful and often unhappily bothered, usually by men. Or, if you like, by boys.
    Skip to next paragraph
    Estate of Roy Lichtenstein, courtesy of Gagosian Gallery

    “Sound of Music,” a work in the Gagosian Gallery’s Roy Lichtenstein show. More Photos »
    Multimedia
    Roy Lichtenstein at GagosianSlide Show
    Roy Lichtenstein at Gagosian

    Title aside, the show is terrific. Just when you thought you’d seen enough Pop Art to last a lifetime, this selection proves otherwise. It reveals Lichtenstein honing his indelible yet impersonal style, and it can be seen in one of New York’s most painting-friendly architectural settings. And ultimately only an ogre would deny that Lichtenstein’s portrayals in some way glorify the American woman by giving innocuous images of her generic concocted self and her roiling emotions such blazing formal power.

    After all, as Dorothy Lichtenstein, the artist’s widow, remarks in an interview in the show’s catalog, “Roy adored women.” And the anonymity of his subjects has exceptions. The smiling woman in “Sound of Music” is clearly Julie Andrews about to burst into song as musical notes stream through the window — although her cheer is undercut by the sharp black shadow that divides her face into areas of red and blue, not unlike the stripe of green in Matisse’s Fauve portrait of his wife in a hat.

    These paintings are themselves bursts, hot flashes of composition, America, humor and color galvanized and made one by pictorial intelligence. Because their visual machinations are perfectly obvious, they make normally arcane terms like form and formalism exhilaratingly accessible. Basically we watch them work.

    Mrs. Lichtenstein notes that Lichtenstein painted on an easel that allowed him to turn each canvas so he could be sure that its power operated in all orientations. It had to work abstractly, in other words, in a way that couldn’t be missed.

    Dating from 1962, 1963 and primarily 1964, the cartoon-based images here are dominated by industrial-strength red, yellow and blue, generously contoured with black lines. The onslaught of color and the seeming dumbness of the images are interrupted by the black-on-white balloons of speech or thought (or, sometimes, music), which have a complex visual and cognitive role in the Garbo-talks vein.

    The paintings that lack them can seem too mute, but stillness is their point. In “Blonde Waiting,” you feel the seconds tick against the silence as a woman with an Angie Dickinsonesque mop of yellow hair intently watches a yellow alarm clock beside a yellow bedstead, wondering just how late Mr. Right is going to be. The silence turns film noir in “Little Aloha,” where the main colors are black and dark blue and one of Lichtenstein’s few nonblondes casts a come-hither look from the shadows.

    But even without the balloons or musical notes, white is an essential element in these paintings. It is visible in highlights, like the woman’s tears of happiness in “Kiss V,” a compact, nearly quartered composition that must have benefited especially from Lichtenstein’s rotating easel. But mainly white is filtered through the scrims of Ben-Day dots. Lichtenstein’s cultivation and manipulation of the dot pattern is one of the show’s main subtexts.

    In the earliest works here — “Forget It! Forget Me!,” “Little Aloha” and even the classic “Masterpiece” (where the female lead speaks the prophetic words “Why, Brad darling, this painting is a masterpiece!”) — the dots are faint and uneven, not quite pulling their weight. But they quickly gain size and substance and diversify. For example, women’s lips are often rendered not in solid red but in Ben-Day stars, stripes or little bow-tie shapes that stand out from the Ben-Day dots of the faces.

    The Ben-Day dots allow Lichtenstein’s painting to look both more and less artificial. They signify mechanical reproduction, but they also add suggestions of light and reflection, shifting colors and variations in touch. The reflections would eventually lead to Lichtenstein’s many portrayals of mirrors, but first they seem to have spawned ceramic sculptures and works in porcelain enamel on steel, a small selection of which is included in the Gagosian show. On their shiny surfaces, fake reflections and shadows — like the aggressive, tattoolike scattering of Ben-Day dots on “Head With Red Shadow” — compete with real ones.

    Mrs. Lichtenstein’s catalog interviewer is, perhaps appropriately, the latter-day Pop artist Jeff Koons, who as usual alternates a golly-gee robotic air with genuine perceptions. Sometimes he blends the two, as when he says: “I always loved how Roy’s work really challenges life force because it tries to compete with life force in the realm of the artificial. He would try to have the artificial keep up and challenge the power of life.”

    This is another museum-quality show from Larry Gagosian’s gallery, and, as is often the case here, everything has a double function, like serving up artists that any dealer would like to represent. Not only is there Mr. Koons’s interview with Mrs. Lichtenstein; Richard Prince, who just left the Gladstone Gallery and is about to have a show at Mr. Gagosian’s gallery in Rome, contributes a small inserted brochure. It juxtaposes each of 22 steamy pulp-fiction covers of books (all titled with female first names) with a Lichtenstein woman painting. The illustrations of scantily clad, curvaceous femme fatales would seem to be the last thing Lichtenstein had in mind.

    What he had in mind was form, a transformation of the terms of real and fake that, as Mr. Koons suggests, was beyond either, a thing in itself. This show makes especially clear how Lichtenstein’s work functions as a kind of primer in looking at and understanding the grand fiction of painting: the thought it requires, its mechanics, its final simplicity and strangeness. These great paintings convey all this in a flash of pleasure, compounded by the thrill of understanding.

    “Roy Lichtenstein: Girls” continues through June 28 at the Gagosian Gallery, 980 Madison Avenue, near 77th Street, (212) 744-2313, gagosian.com.
    More Articles in Arts »
    Need to know more? 50% off home delivery of The Times.

  51. June 20, 2008 11:39 AM

    World population to hit 7 billion in 2012

    By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 19, 3:25 PM ET

    WASHINGTON – The world’s population will reach 7 billion in 2012, even as the global community struggles to satisfy its appetite for natural resources, according to a new government projection.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    There are 6.7 billion people in the world today. The United States ranks third, with 304 million, behind China and India, according to projections released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

    The world’s population surpassed 6 billion in 1999, meaning it will take only 13 years to add a billion people.

    By comparison, the number of people didn’t reach 1 billion until 1800, said Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. It didn’t reach 2 billion until 130 years later.

    “You can easily see the effect of rapid population growth in developing countries,” Haub said.

    Haub said that medical and nutritional advances in developing countries led to a population explosion following World War II. Cultural changes are slowly catching up, with more women in developing countries going to school and joining the work force.

    That is slowing the growth rate, though it is still high in many countries.

    The global population is growing by about 1.2 percent per year. The Census Bureau projects the growth rate will decline to 0.5 percent by 2050.

    By then, India will have surpassed China as the most populous country.

    The Census Bureau updates projections each year on a variety of global demographic trends, including fertility and mortality rates and life expectancy. U.S. life expectancy has surpassed 78 years for the first time, the National Center for Health Statistics announced last week.

    The new Census report comes amid record high oil and gasoline prices, fueled in part by growing demand from expanding economies in China and India.

    There is no consensus on how many people the Earth can sustain, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. He said it depends on how well people manage the Earth’s resources.

    Today, industrialized nations use a disproportionate share of oil and other resources, while developing countries are fueling population growth.

    There are countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East where the average woman has more than six children in her lifetime. In Mali and Niger, two African nations, women average more than seven children.

    “There’s still a long way to go in the developing world,” Frey said. “A lot of it does have to do with the education of women and the movement of women into the labor force.”

    In the U.S., women have an average of about two children, which essentially replaces the population. Much of the U.S. population growth comes from immigration.

  52. Other methods permalink
    July 1, 2008 8:29 PM

    Oral sex or oral-genital sex means both mouth contact with the vagina, which is called cunnilingus, and mouth contact with the penis, which is called fellatio. Cunnilingus comes from a Latin word for vulva (a woman’s exterior sex organs), cunnus, and from the Latin word for licking, lingere. Fellatio comes from the Latin word fellare, meaning to suck. There are many different kinds of oral sex techniques, and you’ve probably even picked up a set of oral sex tips or your own oral sex techniques along the way. Some of the more common oral sex tips involve both partners performing oral sex techniques at the same time.Either form of oral sex can be done with one partner stimulating the other individually, or both partners can stimulate each other’s genitals simultaneously. Oral sex given simultaneously is commonly called 69, or, the French translation, soixante-neuf. This is because the body position of a couple having mutual oral sex resembles the numeral 69.Oral Sex Is a Common Sexual Behavior
    Cunnilingus and fellatio are common sexual behaviors for both same sex couples and couples of different sexes. There are various combinations of positions and techniques used in oral sex, but it is the mouth and tongue that provide the pleasure in all cases.
    Kissing, licking, sucking and nibbling can feel good anywhere on the genitals of both men and women. The pressure (light, firm, and in between), speed (fast, slow, or changing), and the type of motion used can be varied endlessly to produce different sensations. In both practices, the warm, moist feeling of the mouth and the tongue on the genitals can be very erotic. Some enjoy a teasing, stop-start approach, while others prefer a more steady type of stimulation.The Snaky-Lick TrickIn one fellatio technique, known as the Snaky-Lick Trick, the “trick” is to tease the underside of the penis head almost imperceptibly with the very tip of the tongue, just making ever so slight tongue contact with this sensitive area in one light upward lick, and then backing off for about fifteen seconds between each lick. This trick has been said to result in a powerful ejaculation in a very short time.
    Other methods of fellatio include sucking the glans or shaft of the penis by engulfing it in the mouth, licking at various parts of the penis and scrotum, or nibbling anywhere along the genitals. Many men enjoy having the scrotum lightly stroked during fellatio and the area just beneath the scrotum is often quite sensitive to touch or oral massage.

  53. Deltethis page permalink
    July 1, 2008 8:31 PM

    Objections to Fellatio
    Some people are uncomfortable performing fellatio because they have a sensation of gagging when they take the erect penis into their mouth. This real physiological event, known as the gag reflex, is triggered by pressure at the back of the tongue or in the throat. If a man, in his excited state, pushes his penis too far into his partner’s mouth, the gag reflex may take over. One way to avoid this problem is for the person giving the oral sex to grasp the penis along the shaft to control how much of it enters the mouth.

    Another common objection to fellatio is having the man ejaculate in his partner’s mouth. A couple can agree in advance to have the man remove his penis from his partner’s mouth before ejaculation. Others don’t mind. They either rinse the ejaculate from their mouth right away or they swallow it. The ejaculate, on average about 4 cc, consists of proteins and sugars and reportedly contains less than 36 calories.

    Cunnilingus, like fellatio, can be performed in many ways. Women’s preferences vary, but commonly enjoyed techniques include gentle tongue movements over the clitoris, more rapid, focused licking, or sucking the clitoris either gently or in a rougher fashion.

    Other forms that women enjoy are oral stimulation of the clitoris combined with fingering of the vagina; licking and kissing of the lips just outside the vagina; having the tongue thrust in and out of the vaginal opening; and having the clitoris stimulated by hand (her own or her partner’s) while oral stimulation is directed at other parts of the genitals.

    Reservations About Oral Sex
    Not everyone has or enjoys oral sex. Many people who try it enjoy oral sex, but others have reservations about it. These reservations tend to fall into three arenas: first, that oral sex is unhygienic; second, that there is a taboo against it; third, that it is not a true expression of femininity or masculinity.

    With regard to hygiene, neither vaginal fluid nor semen is in any way. This of course is true only in persons who are not infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Everyone should be sure that they themselves and their partners are free from STDs before engaging in any sexual activity.

    No disease can be passed by oral sex that wouldn’t be transmitted by any other kind of sex. If one partner has a STD the other is likely to catch it whatever they do together sexually.

  54. delethis page permalink
    July 1, 2008 8:33 PM

    Oral Sex: Safe and Clean
    In short, oral sex between healthy people is safe and clean. Another hygiene aspect that concerns some people is genital odor. Simply washing the genitals is sufficient to prepare you for any sex, including oral sex.

    It is not necessary for women to douche before having oral sex, but some women choose to do so. However, douching can wash away the helpful bacteria that naturally protect the vagina. In addition to a man’s natural genital odors, the genitals often take on the smells of recently eaten foods. As with women, thorough washing can reduce this odor, and besides, many people find some degree of genital odor in their partner stimulating.

    Oral Sex: A Taboo?
    The notion that oral sex is taboo discourages some people from ever trying it. Oral sex has long been frowned upon and often deemed illegal. The basis for the social disapproval and legal restrictions lies in age-old religious prohibitions, which to some are still very powerful. People who accept and practice almost any of the major Western religions can therefore feel confused and guilty about engaging in oral sex, despite their knowledge that it is a safe and appropriate form of sexual expression.

    For some people, the issue is not conflict with their religious beliefs as much as it is a belief that it somehow compromises their masculinity or femininity. Some people incorrectly think that cunnilingus and fellatio are homosexual acts, even if experienced by heterosexual couples.

    While homosexual couples do engage in oral sex, so do a majority of heterosexual couples. The activity itself is neither homosexual nor heterosexual.

    Feelings Aroused by Oral Sex
    Apart form the misconception about oral sex and homosexuality, women sometimes feel that performing oral sex can make them feel submissive, as if they are giving a service and are thereby inferior.

    Men sometimes feel that performing oral sex on their partner reduces their masculinity because their penis is not involved. Couples should openly discuss these issues, and if necessary seek the help of a qualified therapist. Oral sex, just like any other sexual behavior, is a matter of personal preference.

Trackbacks

  1. News Resources » Blog Archive » FoxNews Friendly Video Userscripts.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: